A Call to End Compulsory Education


Articles Dante Alighieri Arthur Dent Jesus Jones Thomas Paine Other Authors Contact Us! Letter to the Editor Dante Alighieri Arthur Dent Jesus Jones Thomas Paine	A Call to End Compulsory Education Arthur Dent School, according to State law, is mandatory. Unless you're a major criminal, and hence locked up, you have no choice but to go to school. While it makes sense to require young children to attend school (they, after all, can't legally hold down jobs), it does not make sense to force students over the age of 16 to continue to go to a place which they do not want to go, especially if it is not meeting their needs. This law is just plain ass-backwards and has created a whole system by which students feel that "school" equals "jail." Here is what the California Department of Education website has to say on the subject: California's compulsory education law, Education Code Section 48200, requires that all children between the ages of 6 and 18 attend public full-time day school, and further requires that their parents or guardians send them to public school, unless they are legally exempt from this attendance requirement. The two principal exemptions occur when a child receives instruction (1) in a private full-time day school or (2) from a qualified tutor. Tutors are required to hold state teaching credentials for the grade level(s) taught, but teachers in private schools are not. The CDE's website further asserts that if we don't go to school, our parents may actually be fined for our inattendance. It just doesn't make sense. At 16, one can legally hold down a job, as well as drive oneself back and forth to said job. If a 16 year old is qualified for the world of work, why force such a person to stay in school if he/she is disinterested or disruptive? And what happens when you do continue to force such a student to remain at school? These are two important questions to be dealt with one at a time. Why force a kid to stay in school after age 16? One could argue that everyone needs the United States history, government, and economics classes taken their junior and senior years in high school and that students do continue to develop necessary skills in English classes during the last two years of high school, but what other required courses must be taken during that time? Currently, if your skills are good enough, you only need two years of math to survive in the real world. Take them freshman and sophomore years, and you're done.. Science, likewise, can easily be completed in the first two years of high school. If the district believes that a student has learned all he/she needs to know in math and science in only two years, we should allow students to complete the junior/senior year social studies classes off-campus during their first two years and leave school at 16. If you are a student whose parents own a small business, a small business in which you've grown up and trained since you could walk and talk, two extra years at Terra Nova don't offer you anything that important. Of course, there is a lot of education still to be had, but if you've decided you're "done," there's no point in hanging around, especially when you know that you're going to be working in Dad's business full-time the second you graduate high school, that you'll be running the place by the time you're 21, and that you'll out-earn your high school teachers by the time you're 25. And what happens when such a student is forced to remain in school? Most people do not resist learning: we only resist learning about things which hold no interest or apparent use for us. Much of what is taught at Terra Nova is valuable, but only to those who are interested in the material. The rest, simply put, aren't having their needs met. Take, for example, an Introduction to Lab Science class. This non-college prep class contains four types of students: Student A is generally nice, college-bound, and is taking ILS as a warm-up for biology. Student B is a decent learner, often not college-bound, but interested in passing and moving on to the next class. Student C is content to quietly fail; this person is not disturbing the class nor is he/she doing the required work, because it simply holds no interest. Then there is Student D, who might be a good person outside the classroom, but within it, is your typical pain in the neck: acting out constantly, disregarding the material, and trying primarily to get a laugh out of his buddy and piss off the teacher as much as humanly possible. Why is this student forced to remain in the class and impede the learning of Students A, B and C? Because the State of California says so. California Law says that Terra Nova MUST offer an education to Student D until a placement at an appropriate continuation school (in our case, Thornton) opens up. "So just ship them off to Thornton," one might logically assert. Two problems: first, Thornton only has approximately 125 spots for the entire district (current census is at 5000+). Second, the students shipped off to Thornton fare no better than they would here. Then what? Terra Nova either can't get rid of Student D or, if we do manage to, we're sticking another school with the same problem. Why not cut Student D loose? If he/she is so disinterested in what TN has to offer, why can't Student D get the hell out and let the rest of us do what we're here to do? The Education Code is ridiculous: it penalizes those who want to learn (or at least pass) in order to offer a mandated education to a kid who doesn't want it! Lest I be accused of simply "whining," here are some possible solutions: Solution One: Offer Students C and D something better. For example, future small-business owners of Pacifica may prefer a course in Business English to a literature-filled CP English class. Surely, this student would see the value in learning how to write business letters, decipher contracts, or interview job applicants, things small-business members do all the time. The school should also offer ROP so that students can get jobs for half of the day and come to school the rest of the time for their required classes. In this scenario, everyone wins: students stay in school longer, we learn more of what we need to know in accordance with our future plans, and, because we feel there's a purpose to being here, we disrupt less often. Solution Two: Make school optional, but make the rules stricter for those who choose to come. The school can tell students, "School is here for your benefit and for the benefit of those around you. If you decide to attend, disrupting the educational atmosphere is strictly prohibited. If you choose not to attend, good luck out there. Make it a great day or not, the choice is yours." If we choose to come, we'll be here because we want to be, not because we're forced to be. The atmosphere would be very different under such circumstances, because we'd know that if we disrupted class, we'd be out. It's a big, scary world out there, and even though we act like we know it all, we secretly know that we don't. Many of us like the safety net that school provides, and many of us are also interested in learning. However, what we'd really like is for those who don't give a damn to be shown the door so that those of us who do care can make the most of our time here. Works Cited (Ha!) "Compulsory Education Law and Home Schooling in California." California Department of Education. 29 Sept. 2002.	Archive Back Issues Why? Cartoons Poetry Random Rants Disclaimers Losers and Kudos of the Week Letters to the Editor Editor's Notes Picture of the Week
Back		Top

Arthur Dent

School, according to State law, is mandatory. Unless you're a major criminal, and hence locked up, you have no choice but to go to school. While it makes sense to require young children to attend school (they, after all, can't legally hold down jobs), it does not make sense to force students over the age of 16 to continue to go to a place which they do not want to go, especially if it is not meeting their needs. This law is just plain ass-backwards and has created a whole system by which students feel that "school" equals "jail."

Here is what the California Department of Education website has to say on the subject: California's compulsory education law, Education Code Section 48200, requires that all children between the ages of 6 and 18 attend public full-time day school, and further requires that their parents or guardians send them to public school, unless they are legally exempt from this attendance requirement. The two principal exemptions occur when a child receives instruction (1) in a private full-time day school or (2) from a qualified tutor. Tutors are required to hold state teaching credentials for the grade level(s) taught, but teachers in private schools are not.

The CDE's website further asserts that if we don't go to school, our parents may actually be fined for our inattendance. It just doesn't make sense. At 16, one can legally hold down a job, as well as drive oneself back and forth to said job. If a 16 year old is qualified for the world of work, why force such a person to stay in school if he/she is disinterested or disruptive? And what happens when you do continue to force such a student to remain at school? These are two important questions to be dealt with one at a time.

Why force a kid to stay in school after age 16? One could argue that everyone needs the United States history, government, and economics classes taken their junior and senior years in high school and that students do continue to develop necessary skills in English classes during the last two years of high school, but what other required courses must be taken during that time? Currently, if your skills are good enough, you only need two years of math to survive in the real world. Take them freshman and sophomore years, and you're done.. Science, likewise, can easily be completed in the first two years of high school. If the district believes that a student has learned all he/she needs to know in math and science in only two years, we should allow students to complete the junior/senior year social studies classes off-campus during their first two years and leave school at 16. If you are a student whose parents own a small business, a small business in which you've grown up and trained since you could walk and talk, two extra years at Terra Nova don't offer you anything that important. Of course, there is a lot of education still to be had, but if you've decided you're "done," there's no point in hanging around, especially when you know that you're going to be working in Dad's business full-time the second you graduate high school, that you'll be running the place by the time you're 21, and that you'll out-earn your high school teachers by the time you're 25. And what happens when such a student is forced to remain in school?

Most people do not resist learning: we only resist learning about things which hold no interest or apparent use for us. Much of what is taught at Terra Nova is valuable, but only to those who are interested in the material. The rest, simply put, aren't having their needs met. Take, for example, an Introduction to Lab Science class. This non-college prep class contains four types of students: Student A is generally nice, college-bound, and is taking ILS as a warm-up for biology. Student B is a decent learner, often not college-bound, but interested in passing and moving on to the next class. Student C is content to quietly fail; this person is not disturbing the class nor is he/she doing the required work, because it simply holds no interest. Then there is Student D, who might be a good person outside the classroom, but within it, is your typical pain in the neck: acting out constantly, disregarding the material, and trying primarily to get a laugh out of his buddy and piss off the teacher as much as humanly possible. Why is this student forced to remain in the class and impede the learning of Students A, B and C? Because the State of California says so. California Law says that Terra Nova MUST offer an education to Student D until a placement at an appropriate continuation school (in our case, Thornton) opens up. "So just ship them off to Thornton," one might logically assert. Two problems: first, Thornton only has approximately 125 spots for the entire district (current census is at 5000+). Second, the students shipped off to Thornton fare no better than they would here. Then what? Terra Nova either can't get rid of Student D or, if we do manage to, we're sticking another school with the same problem. Why not cut Student D loose? If he/she is so disinterested in what TN has to offer, why can't Student D get the hell out and let the rest of us do what we're here to do? The Education Code is ridiculous: it penalizes those who want to learn (or at least pass) in order to offer a mandated education to a kid who doesn't want it!

Lest I be accused of simply "whining," here are some possible solutions:

Solution One: Offer Students C and D something better. For example, future small-business owners of Pacifica may prefer a course in Business English to a literature-filled CP English class. Surely, this student would see the value in learning how to write business letters, decipher contracts, or interview job applicants, things small-business members do all the time. The school should also offer ROP so that students can get jobs for half of the day and come to school the rest of the time for their required classes. In this scenario, everyone wins: students stay in school longer, we learn more of what we need to know in accordance with our future plans, and, because we feel there's a purpose to being here, we disrupt less often.

Solution Two: Make school optional, but make the rules stricter for those who choose to come. The school can tell students, "School is here for your benefit and for the benefit of those around you. If you decide to attend, disrupting the educational atmosphere is strictly prohibited. If you choose not to attend, good luck out there. Make it a great day or not, the choice is yours." If we choose to come, we'll be here because we want to be, not because we're forced to be. The atmosphere would be very different under such circumstances, because we'd know that if we disrupted class, we'd be out. It's a big, scary world out there, and even though we act like we know it all, we secretly know that we don't. Many of us like the safety net that school provides, and many of us are also interested in learning. However, what we'd really like is for those who don't give a damn to be shown the door so that those of us who do care can make the most of our time here.

Works Cited (Ha!)

"Compulsory Education Law and Home Schooling in California." California Department of Education. 29 Sept. 2002.